2016 Hall of Fame Ballot, Who would you vote for?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I am aware that he had a great 7 years in Pittsburgh, but that's actually my point. 7 great years does not a HOFer make. If that's the case put Don Mattingly in right now. "Well on your way to the HOF" and "worthy of the HOF" are completely different things, just ask Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, etc. If all we should look at are the 7 years Bonds was supposedly clean (which is debatable, because whether it's generally accepted or not, who really knows) then I don't think he deserves HOF enshrinement any more than any other player who was very good (or even great) for such a short period of time. Dale Murphy was a two time MVP as well, with 5 Gold Gloves and 7 All-Star appearances, easily one of the top players in the league for the same amount of time that Bonds was a Pirate. Yet Murphy did it clean by all accounts, and is punished for hanging around the game and experiencing the natural decline in performance, even though his career stats make a compelling arguement for induction. Why should the track Bonds was on before allegedly using be viewed any differently than the track Murph was on?

Bonds had three great years in Pittsburgh, and I'm in complete agreeance with you that he would not have warranted Hall induction solely based on his time as a Pirate. But, I've never said he would. My contention has always been that by the time he got to San Francisco, he was already one of the top two or three players in the game, and it was unnecessary for him to take steroids to become great. If he'd just continued on at the same level, or nearly the same level, for several years in San Francisco, he'd have a great case for induction.

And Murphy, while a two-time MVP, was never on Bonds' level. Murphy's best season, by WAR, was a 7.7 in 1987. His two MVP seasons he had a 7.1 and a 6.1. Look at the seasons Bonds had just in Pittsburgh: a 9.7 WAR in 1990, a 9.0 in 1992, and 8.0 in 1989, and a 7.9 in 1991. Then, as a Giant, he was off the charts.

From 1980 to 1990, Murphy played nearly every game, every season. By 1990, his age 34 season, he'd compiled only a 46.9 WAR. By 1992, when he left for San Francisco at age 28, Barry Bonds had already compiled a 50.1 WAR. He compiled a higher WAR in 1,000 games than Murphy did in 1,983 games.

And Don Mattingly didn't really have seven great seasons. He had three (1984-1986), one really good season (1987), and a couple other pretty good seasons (1988 and 1989). If Don hadn't hurt his back, I feel he'd have been a Hall of Famer. He was a great hitter and run producer, and an exceptional glove man. It's too bad, because I always really liked him.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

My contention has always been that by the time he got to San Francisco, he was already one of the top two or three players in the game, and it was unnecessary for him to take steroids to become great. If he'd just continued on at the same level, or nearly the same level, for several years in San Francisco, he'd have a great case for induction.

Without splitting hairs on the accuracy of a speculative stat such as WAR, this is the important part. Yes Bonds was on his way. Then he cheated and now he's on the outside looking in. Simple as that really. Saying that he didn't need to take steroids is not only speculation, it's irrelevant, because whether he did or didn't need to, he took them. He shouldn't be put in based on speculation of what he might have done during his career if he had been clean. The same consideration is not given to great players who had their careers derailed by injury, it shouldn't be given to someone who cheated, which is much more within the control of the player than getting hurt.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Without splitting hairs on the accuracy of a speculative stat such as WAR, this is the important part. Yes Bonds was on his way. Then he cheated and now he's on the outside looking in. Simple as that really. Saying that he didn't need to take steroids is not only speculation, it's irrelevant, because whether he did or didn't need to, he took them. He shouldn't be put in based on speculation of what he might have done during his career if he had been clean. The same consideration is not given to great players who had their careers derailed by injury, it shouldn't be given to someone who cheated, which is much more within the control of the player than getting hurt.

I feel Bonds will likely get in one day, but the fact that he did use performance enhancers forever taints his accomplishments in my eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I feel Bonds will likely get in one day, but the fact that he did use performance enhancers forever taints his accomplishments in my eyes.

Do you consider amphetamines performance enhancers?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do you consider amphetamines performance enhancers?

Not nearly to the degree of steroids. I equate greenies and all that crap to Gaylord Perry's spitball. Yes, players were more alert. No, they didn't (generally) see their home run totals spike by 200% in any given season. The effects anabolic steroids have to a person's body is night and day compared to amphetamines.

[HRBAKER]

Evidently Bonds felt he needed to cheat.

[CMIZ5290]

I would be shocked if Bonds ever gets in. JMO....

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do you consider amphetamines performance enhancers?

Yes, but I pretty much agree with Derek's opinion. I know that Mays and others have admitted to using greenies. Greenies, to my knowledge, didn't completely alter a player's body type, add muscle, help players recover faster from injuries, etc. I could of course be wrong, as I haven't done serious reading as to the differences between the two (from a recognizable, expert source). All I know is that when you look at a player like Henry Aaron, he was 170 lbs in 1956. In 1975, he was 180 lbs. Barry Bonds in 1987 was 165 lbs. By 2007, he weighed 230 lbs.

Bonds added 65 pounds to his frame. I know that the kind of weight training done today really didn't exist back in the 1950s and 1960s, at least it wasn't done in Major League Baseball. But conditioning and exercise program aside, Bonds adding 65 pounds to his frame just seems unnatural to me.

Edit to add, I would be interested in your position on the two, Peter. I respect your opinion.

[packs]

Will they ever hold another Negro League vote?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by packs

Will they ever hold another Negro League vote?

I seem to remember them saying that the vote in 2007 would be the last time they considered Negro League players but I could be misremembering. I sure hope they hold another as there are still several viable candidates, most notably Buck O'Neill and Minnie Minoso.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Yes, but I pretty much agree with Derek's opinion. I know that Mays and others have admitted to using greenies. Greenies, to my knowledge, didn't completely alter a player's body type, add muscle, help players recover faster from injuries, etc. I could of course be wrong, as I haven't done serious reading as to the differences between the two (from a recognizable, expert source). All I know is that when you look at a player like Henry Aaron, he was 170 lbs in 1956. In 1975, he was 180 lbs. Barry Bonds in 1987 was 165 lbs. By 2007, he weighed 230 lbs.

Bonds added 65 pounds to his frame. I know that the kind of weight training done today really didn't exist back in the 1950s and 1960s, at least it wasn't done in Major League Baseball. But conditioning and exercise program aside, Bonds adding 65 pounds to his frame just seems unnatural to me.

Edit to add, I would be interested in your position on the two, Peter. I respect your opinion.

I find it hard to draw the line between what one generation used to enhance their performance and what another used, on the basis that the later generation had better stuff. The intent was the same, to get whatever edge they could. I would guess if nothing else, amphetamines reduce sensitivity to pain, I believe they are used for that purpose in combat. So to lionize Aaron Mays and Mantle and to condemn Bonds and Clemens?? I don't know.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Yes, but I pretty much agree with Derek's opinion. I know that Mays and others have admitted to using greenies. Greenies, to my knowledge, didn't completely alter a player's body type, add muscle, help players recover faster from injuries, etc. I could of course be wrong, as I haven't done serious reading as to the differences between the two (from a recognizable, expert source). All I know is that when you look at a player like Henry Aaron, he was 170 lbs in 1956. In 1975, he was 180 lbs. Barry Bonds in 1987 was 165 lbs. By 2007, he weighed 230 lbs.

Bonds added 65 pounds to his frame. I know that the kind of weight training done today really didn't exist back in the 1950s and 1960s, at least it wasn't done in Major League Baseball. But conditioning and exercise program aside, Bonds adding 65 pounds to his frame just seems unnatural to me.

Edit to add, I would be interested in your position on the two, Peter. I respect your opinion.

Even if you can accept his 65 added pounds, how does someone's head increase a couple sizes????